Developing a Viable "Work Out" Strategy:
As the City of London, IMF, EU,
and Other Sharks Circle Closer

First edition published 30
May 2010

Adding
to the shock of having been added to a "terror" list,
Icelanders discovered that many international organizations
which ostensibly exist to help financially distressed countries
are in actuality wolves in sheeps' clothing. The
major issues were as follows:

a).
How to fairly determine the liability of the Icelandic
people?

The
UK and Netherlands were trying to stick Iceland with a bill
of over $5 billion for failed Icesave accounts, amounting to
over $20,000 per citizen, yet both the UK and Netherlands governments
had a duty to regulate and even insure the Iceland deposit accounts
sold in their countries. Furthermore, the Icelandic people were
now being put on the hook for backroom deals made by a handful
of private financial operators. The attempt to now dump liability
on Iceland's taxpayers meant a de facto policy of "privatize
the profits, socialize the losses." If
Landsbanki's programs such as Icesave had been a big success,
does anyone believe that the owners would have offered to give
away their appreciated equity and profits to the Icelandic people?
(Of course not!) Why then should the Icelandic people be forced
to eat all the downside risk of privately owned bankers if they
never get a piece of the upside? If
Icelanders accepted the full liability dumped on them by the
City of London, this could cripple the country economically
for more than a generation. To add insult to injury, Icelanders
were kept in the dark about the amount within Icesave accounts
that was recoverable. The City of London initially tried to
stick them with the full amount, but then later on in her interview
with Alex Jones, Birgitta Jonsdottir suggested that 88% was
recoverable! In
other words, Zionist "Trolls" who run the City of
London were so low that they tried to bluff Icelanders into
debt-slavery. Do I begin to hear the proverbial Greek chorus
chant the "Revenge
of the Neanderthal" refrain in the background?

b)
How to obtain interim financing to keep basic services
functioning in the economy?

There
was no bailout money forthcoming from New York. While the U.S.
is willing to squander trillions to ostensibly support "democracy"
among exotic peoples in central Asia with long traditions of
"Asiatic despotism," it could spare nothing to assist
a Nordic people with very similar republican traditions compared
to America's WASP founders. The
Icelandic government was able to obtain some funding from the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), but at the same time populist
politicians discovered sinister strings attached. The pressure
to obtain alternative financing became so great that Iceland's
central bank courted
a Russian loan, and Iceland's President even offered the
Russian military use of facilities formerly used by NATO. Perhaps
this was only a gesture to send a message to the U.S. and UK,
however, Putin and Medvedev declined the offer.

c)
Whether or not to join the EU?

Theoretically,
by joining the EU, Icelanders would immediately have tariff-free
access to a bigger market. Supposedly this would provide an
immediate shot in the arm for certain businesses and speed economic
recovery. However,
there are many dark sides to EU membership. For starters, many
EU members today complain that the EU is in reality dominated
by Germany, the "economic locomotive of Europe," which
in turn has been obeying the Israeli-U.S.-City of London axis
ever since Germany's WWII unconditional surrender. Whenever
Israelis demand that Germans build them Dolphin
submarines capable of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles,
or erect a macabre 4.7 acre conglomeration
of 2,711 concrete slabs in Berlin, or ask them to persecute
historical free thinkers such as Ernst Zundel, Sylvia Stolz,
or Dr.
Fredrick Toben, Germany maintains a habit of complying.Second,
joining the EU would create the threat that "European"
corporations could move in, shove Icelanders aside, and grab
control of Iceland's fishing grounds, geothermal and hydropower
areas, potential oil fields, and other natural resources. In
her interview with Alex Jones, member of Parliament Birgitta
Jonsdottir described how the City of London showed its real
agenda in this regard. First it threatened to block EU membership
if Iceland did not agree to its onerous debt terms, and then
once seeing that this tactical negotiation ploy got nowhere,
flip-flopped 180 degrees and pushed for free EU membership.
One way or another, EU corporations clearly want to gain access
to Iceland's natural resources. Third,
the EU suffers from increasingly arrogant and burdensome bureaucratic
regulation removed from national interests. There is increasing
talk in European alternative media about secession of various
countries. Fourth,
EU membership would eliminate Iceland's ability to control population
flow across its borders. A Third World invasion would be particularly
disastrous for such a small country of under 330,000 people,
forever destroying their indigenous Nordic culture. Norway itself
already has serious demographic problems on its horizon, as
noted in the 22 April 2009 article "Will
Beautiful Norway be Snuffed Out?" by Arthur
Kemp. Last,
but not least, for those of us who admire the ideals of the
American Revolution, the idea of adding an extra layer of European
government on top of Icelandic government is very suspicious
simply on a broad philosophical level. After all the American
Revolution was essentially libertarian in nature, based on the
idea that in the long run, government tends to be more of the
problem than the solution, and once government grows beyond
a certain size, it tends to become more of a parasite than a
producer. People who advocate Big Government who say "It
is different this time" are usually always proven wrong
over the long run. So what is different here?

d)
How does one create greater accountability in business
and government?

Obviously
terrible mistakes were made for Iceland to get into such a mess.
Who made them? How were they made? What are the facts? Icelanders
have encountered repeated denials and cover ups by their public
officials. The report of theofficial investigation
by the Special Investigation Commission (SIC) was delayed until
April 2010. Icelanders
developed two novel approaches to force disclosure. First, they
staged a "pots and pans" populist revolution in early
2009 to sweep deadbeat politicians out of office. Secondly,
they pioneered a "Modern Media Initiative" to promote
uncensored journalism and political discourse. Many Icelanders
want to develop Iceland as an international free speech haven.
After all, free media are the first line of defense against
corruption and self-dealing by public officials. I
have collated extracts from a number of online articles that
provide important insights into each of these issues:

The
UK and the Netherlands are concerned by the failure of Icelandic
banks Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki because they had welcomed
their subsidiaries and branches with open arms, even though
their authorities had been at least partially alerted to the
risks hanging over those banks. The two countries are now
demanding that Iceland pay them astronomical sums (more than
€2.7bn (£2.3bn) to the UK and over €1.3bn
to the Netherlands, plus interest at 5.5pc in compensation.
They
claim Iceland was responsible for guaranteeing funds deposited
with Landsbanki's internet arm Icesave, which was offering
unbeatable ratesBut
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is wrong when he says
that he and his government have no responsibility in the matter.
First, he has a moral responsibility, having been one of the
main proponents of this model which we can now see has gone
up the spout. Second, he cannot say that the UK had neither
the means nor the legitimacy to supervise Icesave's activities.
Could
anyone realistically think that a handful of people in Reykjavik
could effectively control the activities of a bank in the
heart of the City? European directives concerning financial
conglomerates suggest that EU member states allowing foreign
banking subsidiaries into their territories must ensure they
are subject to the same control abroad as they would be domestically.
So,
was there a failure on the part of the British authorities
on this point, which would not be particularly surprising
considering the "performance" of other English banks during
the financial crisis? If so, Mr Brown's activism in relation
to Iceland might be motivated by a wish to appear powerful
in the eyes of his electorate. Of
course, the Icelandic institutions have much responsibility.
But does that necessarily mean that the responsibility of
the British authorities should be overlooked, dumping it all
on the Icelandic people alone?

Icelanders
were kept in the dark about how much within each Icesave account
was recoverable. The City of London initially wanted to hit
up Icelanders for the full amount. Worse yet, certain Icelandic
government officials refused to question this on behalf of the
Icelandic people. Later, according to Birgitta Jonsdottir, quite
a bit was recoverable, suggesting that the City of London was
trying to bluff the Icelandic people:

Jones: I have heard this statement, is it
accurate? The finance minister Steingrímur,
am I pronouncing that right?, said a "No" vote does
not mean we are refusing to pay. What are your thoughts on
his statements? Birgitta: Sometimes it really surprises me
what he says. It sounds like he is working for the British
and the Dutch, not us. Jones: So he did say that?Birgitta: Well he did say that, however let
us not forget that the bank in question actually has a sustainable
amount of assets that can be recovered. And so far what the
British and Dutch can claim in it will actually be recovered
by at least 88%.Jones: Yes, that was in the Times
of London. They claimed that you all owed them $20,000+ every
individual and they had to take over all your infrastructure.
Now they go, "Guess what, we don't even need that money.
We already had the assets." So it was a giant --just
like the banks here that have robbed us are already recording
record profits, the same banks that are trying to rob you.
I mean that is such a key point that it turns out that they
have the assets to begin with.Birgitta: Yes, and the thing is that they
actually decided that Darling, the financial minister of the
UK, he decided to move money within his own ministry and then
earmark some of it, $700 billion Icelandic to the Icelandic
nation, and then expect us to pay full interest, really high
interest on that. I mean it is a brilliant scheme, but we
will not do it. Jones: Exactly, you are wise to it. Americans
should get wise as well. The collapse of Iceland was a private
matter. "Why did they want the people to pay it?"
is a question from "resistarchipelago" [sent in
to this station]. Birgitta: Well, I mean in general, like every
time you look at how the IMF functions, I was actually reading
a secret document leaked to Wikileaks. It was a brilliant
source if you want to sort of dig deeper into the real conspiracies
of our world. And it was a manual from the military sector
in the U.S. talking about unconventional warfare. And in the
unconventional warfare, the section about financial warfare,
they talk about the IMF as one of their choice weapons. So,
you know, I encourage people to study how the IMF functions.Jones: Exactly. It is a private consortium
for blowing out countries. And the banks are attacking America.
This is a criminal group...

How to obtain interim
financing to keep
basic services functioning in the economy?

...The
REAL scandal is how a country surrounded for decades by close
friends and allies is being hung out to dry at the only time
in the republic’s history that it really, really needs
help from its friends. In these emotionally charged times,
Icelanders are angry and upset that the world seems to be
happy to watch them return to the Stone Age. The
IMF has delayed its decision on Iceland’s USD 2.1 billion
loan request yet again. This time apparently because they
want Iceland to secure the remaining four billion of its desired
six billion before they approve it – despite already
knowing full well that other potential lenders are holding
their money back until the IMF approves their loan.The
Swedish business daily Dagens Industri describes Iceland’s
current position as “a catch 22 situation”. The
Swedish Central Bank is one of the key institutions that has
declared it is waiting for IMF money to reach Iceland before
it offers the country a loan.Icelandic
suspicions are that the IMF loan is being held up by the Dutch
and British governments eager for Iceland to agree to cover
the cost of all Icesave deposits before they give the IMF
loan their blessing. Under European law, Iceland is responsible
for only the first EUR 20,000 in each account.While
the Dutch have hinted that this may be somewhat true, a British
government spokesman told Frettabladid today that the UK wants
Iceland to receive the loan and that the country has not been
using its influence in the IMF to delay the decision......Talking
of fresh starts: a principal reason for Iceland securing loans
worth USD 6 billion is to provide substantial foreign currency
reserves to support the Icelandic krona when it is refloated
on international markets in the near future. Iceland’s
currency absolutely needs to have a decent level of value
and stability at whatever cost in order for the country to
get back on its feet again.But
does that currency need to be the Icelandic krona? Daniel
Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy in Brussels
who assisted Montenegro on adopting the euro without joining
the European Union, recommends Iceland do the same and that
the country do so as soon as possible, Iceland Review
reports....

"Iceland
Turns Hard Left" by Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson,
2 Feb 2009, explained how the IMF used its lending power to
coerce Icelanders into assuming debts for which they may not
in fact have been liable:

"In
exchange for a $5.1 billion rescue package, the International
Monetary Fund (and the European Union) forced Iceland’s
government to assume the banks’ commitments for foreign
depositors. Thus was created one of the largest public debts
per capita: possibly about $10 billion for a nation of 310,000,
or more than $30,000 per head."

...“This
is an attack on our sovereignty,” said Ogmundur Jonasson,
the country’s health minister. “It reminds me
of old colonial times. Gordon
Brown had no harsh words for the United States when Lehman
Brothers went down and billions of pounds went to the
U.S. That was friendship — this is ‘Take the little
guy and nail him to the wall.’ ” To not pass
the bill, the government says (most of it anyway), would lead
to the I.M.F. and other outside lenders withdrawing funds,
further jeopardizing the country’s fragile condition.But
detractors say passing it would increase Iceland’s debt
burden to 200 percent of gross
domestic product, making it one of the most leveraged
nations in the world. Ultimately, they say, it could drive
Iceland to default.At
the crux of this debate is the Icesave, or “Iceslave,”
as it is called here. Icesave accounts were a top-of-the-market
gambit by Landsbanki, the most aggressive of the failed Icelandic
banks, to raise cash by extending its branch network from
tiny Reykjavik to the high streets of London. The reaction
to the agreement to make good on the accounts encapsulates
all the swelling anger that Icelanders now bear toward bankers,
foreign creditors and I.M.F. technocrats — not necessarily
in that order..."On
Aug. 3, the I.M.F. is expected to discuss whether to disburse
a second tranche of its $2.1 billion loan to Iceland (about
a quarter has been disbursed so far). Mr. Rozwadowski says
Iceland is on target with steps to balance its budget"

The
challenges facing Iceland are profound. The IMF has only slowed,
but not reversed, the rate of collapse. Unemployment has soared
from under 2% to well over 8%. Inflation continues to rage
in the 15-20% range. The currency controls imposed by the
IMF due to the collapse of the Icelandic krona have essentially
prevented Icelandic businesses from doing business abroad,
and there is talk of major companies relocating their headquarters
to America and Europe.

But
let's forget the "poverty-fighting" track record
of these organizations for a moment. Where does each stand
in relation to the systemic problem that caused the panic
in the first place — lack of oversight? The IMF and
World Bank are themselves without any real external oversight.
They are virtually impenetrable by the legislatures of their
member governments. Labyrinthine bureaucracies, coupled with
immunities from national and international laws, have become,
for them, impunity.Neither
institution has answered for its track record because no one
is entitled to ask. Neither Bank nor Fund officials can be
subpoenaed by national legislatures, nor can they be obliged
to testify in court. No government can demand internal documents
from them. While each has some disclosure policies, these
often remain unimplemented because the organizations cannot
be sued. This is the stunning contradiction of the G-20 action:
the signatories declared, "the era of bank secrecy is
over," but then dumped a trillion dollars of public money
into the most secretive financial institutions in the world.To
make matters worse, IMF and Bank staff members who witness
corruption or fraud (and there are plenty) are not allowed
to inform affected governments or the press, except under
the most stringent constraints. If they do, they risk deportation
back to their home countries. This assures perpetual corruption
instead of beneficial reform.

In
her interview with Alex Jones, Birgitta Jonsdottir, explained
other evil aspects of the IMF that she uncovered:

Birgitta: ...The big problem we are facing
now is that you know before the collapse we had like 1% unemployment.
In one month it shot up to 10%, and now we are dealing with
something around 14%. And people are facing foreclosures and
the government is not really capable of dealing with these
problems because we are within this IMF program, and they
are keeping the interest rates really high, which is a total
fail in a situation like this. The interest rates should be
similar to your interest rates. Almost zero. So we are, before,
like in 2007, we were up on to the UN standard as the most
developed nation in the world. Like one of the richest nations
in the world. And so this is a huge leap in a really short
period of time. There is an Icelandic exodus. There is a lot
of people moving away from Iceland because they see no hope
being here. And I think it is critical to stop that exodus
and to try to find a common vision among different people.Jones: Absolutely. I mean, we see how the
banks destroy societies. First World, the only First World
country in Latin America, Argentina, has been destroyed by
them. And we see them holding you hostage, cutting off the
credit cards, cutting off the trade, trying to force you into
submission, but you said "No." So it is important
for people to support what you are doing...

Later
in this same interview, Birgitta and Jones got back on the topic
of the dark side of the IMF

Birgitta: ...Well, what led to the referendum
was that basically we had a contract made between the nations
last summer. And it was so bad that the Parliament actually
had to spend two or three months making amendments to it in
order for it to be safe for us to pass it. And it still had
high interest but we did put some rules on the payment in
accordance with GDP so that if there was no growth in Iceland,
they wouldn't pay anything during those years. However, it
was extremely bad, and we are still paying 5.5% interest.
Jones: Which compounds. Go ahead.Birgitta: 5.5% interest on it. So just paying
the interest would have like, so 317,000 people in Iceland,
80,000 Icelandic taxpayers would be paying only the interest
of this Icesave deal.Jones: And that is the same model they have
used in all these other countries, Third World countries where
you will have a billion dollar loan backed by nothing from
the IMF or World Bank to save Nigeria, and then 20 years later
they owe 50 something billion on one billion dollars. Birgitta: Exactly. And the thing is that
the IMF, which is supposed to be an institute, something that
all the nations that are a part of it, pay into every year,
and it is supposed not to be interfering between states or
between countries. But the Brits are big shareholders in it,
and they have been using it to blackmail us into submission.
And that upset Iceland tremendously because most Icelanders
are not very happy or keen to be in the IMF program to begin
with, because being in the IMF program means that there is
a complete erosion of everything that we know as a welfare
system. And before all of this we had a very good educational
system, very good healthcare, everybody had access to healthcare
gets the same doctor as the President without paying anything.
So we feel that all of that is going to be lost if we do not
stand up to these forces that we are dealing with. And I have
actually put a proposal in Parliament last week about finding
a plan B to get rid of the IMF, because there is a lot of
fantastic experts and economists like Joseph Stiglitz and
many more who have offered to help us find a solution that
would be different than --Jones: And he said that the banks are engaging
in criminal activity and the Federal Reserve is destroying
America. He is a Nobel Prize winner for those who don't know.
Birgitta: Yes exactly, I actually had the
privilege of meeting with him last year and also Jim Perkins,
and Jim Perkins said that we should form an alliance with
countries that are facing similar situations as we are in
and I think that is actually a very good idea. And I have
been trying to encourage this government which is a left wing
government which should be fighting very much against having
an IMF program in Iceland, which IMF programs go very much
into privatization of everything. But we will see what happens.
Really the spirit in Iceland right now is like having only
1.3% of the nation saying "Yes" to this Icesave
deal, and 93% saying "No." There is really a spirit
or demand from the general public that the parties move beyond
party politics and start to work for us, not I and I and I.
Frankly we need for parties and people to start to focus on
joint solutions beyond party politics. Jones: You have got to circle the wagons
against the bankers...

Griffin
examines how while the Federal Reserve claims to protect the
public that really it is being used to bailout banks and industries
to the detriment of the public. Griffin also examines the
role of socialism, credit, regulation of the free market,
and the S&L crisis. Following this, Griffin turns to the
schemes of the Fabian socialists to achieve a world bank which
later became the IMF. Griffin sees in such schemes the plots
of the elite for a world government. Griffin shows how the
New World Order is being set up to finance despotisms and
that it is attempting to corrode national sovereignty and
the American nation.

This
is the autobiography of a man whose job was to entice leaders
of under-developed nations into accepting loans from the IMF
and World Bank. The enticement was that the money would be
used to expand their infrastructure of roads, railways, electrical
power, and communications and, thereby, bring prosperity to
these countries. He did this as a corporate economist who
deliberately exaggerated the potential for economic return
on these investments....There
were two primary objectives of my work. First, I was to justify
huge international loans that would funnel money back to MAIN
[the firm for which Perkins worked] and other U.S. companies
(such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster, and Brown
& Root) through massive engineering and construction projects.
Second, I would work to bankrupt the countries that received
those loans (after they paid MAIN and the other U.S. contractors,
of course) so that they would be forever beholden to their
creditors, and so they would present easy targets when we
needed favors, including military bases, UN votes, or access
to oil and other natural resources. (p. 15.) The
unspoken aspect of every one of these projects was that they
were intended to create large profits for the contractors
and to make a handful of wealthy and influential families
in the receiving countries very happy, while assuring the
long-term financial dependence and therefore the political
loyalty of governments around the world. The larger the loan,
the better. The fact that the debt burden placed on a country
would deprive its poorest citizens of health, education, and
other social services for decades to come was not taken into
consideration. (pp. 15, 16.) However
– and this is a very large caveat – if we fail,
an even more sinister breed steps in, ones we EHMs refer to
as jackals, men who trace their heritage directly to those
earlier empires. The jackals are always there, lurking in
the shadows. When they emerge, heads of state are overthrown
or die in violent “accidents.” And if by chance
the jackals fail, as they failed in Afghanistan and Iraq,
then the old models resurface. When the jackals fail, young
Americans are sent in to kill and to die.” (pp. xx,
xxi.)

Many
nations have been waking up to the debt traps created by the
IMF and other globalist organizations besides Iceland. They
have started to devise resistance strategies. EU/IMF
Revolt: Greece, Iceland, Latvia May Lead the Way,
by Ellen Brown, December 7, 2009, describes progress made by
Argentina to restore sovereignty. .

The Road Less Traveled: Saying No
to the IMF

Standing
up to the IMF is not a well-worn path, but Argentina forged
the trail. In the face of dire predictions that the economy
would collapse without foreign credit, in 2001 it defied its
creditors and simply walked away from its debts. By
the fall of 2004, three years after a record default on a
debt of more than $100 billion, the country was well on the
road to recovery; and it achieved this feat without foreign
help. The economy grew by 8 percent for 2 consecutive years.
Exports increased, the currency was stable, investors were
returning, and unemployment had eased. “This is a remarkable
historical event, one that challenges 25 years of failed policies,”
said economist Mark Weisbrot in a 2004 interview quoted in
The New York Times. “While other countries
are just limping along, Argentina is experiencing very healthy
growth with no sign that it is unsustainable, and they’ve
done it without having to make any concessions to get foreign
capital inflows.”Weisbrot
is co-director of a Washington-based think tank called the
Center for Economic and Policy Research, which put out a study
in October 2009 of 41 IMF debtor countries. The study found
that the austere policies imposed by the IMF, including cutting
spending and tightening monetary policy, were more likely
to damage than help those economies. That
was also the conclusion of a study released last February
by Yonca
Özdemir from the Middle East Technical University
in Ankara, comparing IMF assistance in Argentina and Turkey.
Both emerging markets faced severe economic crises in 2001,
preceded by chronic fiscal deficits, insufficient export growth,
high indebtedness, political instability, and wealth inequality.
Where
Argentina broke ranks with the IMF, however, Turkey followed
its advice at every turn. The end result was that Argentina
bounced back, while Turkey is still in financial crisis. Turkey’s
reliance on foreign investment has made it highly susceptible
to the global economic downturn. Argentina chose instead to
direct its investment inward, developing its domestic economy.
To
find the money for this development, Argentina did not need
foreign investors. It issued its own money and credit through
its own central bank. Earlier, when the national currency
collapsed completely in 1995 and again after 2000, Argentine
local governments issued local bonds that traded as currency.
Provinces paid their employees with paper receipts called
“Debt-Cancelling Bonds” that were in currency
units equivalent to the Argentine Peso. The bonds canceled
the provinces’ debts to their employees and could be
spent in the community. The provinces had actually “monetized”
their debts, turning their bonds into legal tender. Argentina
is a large country with more resources than Iceland, Latvia
or Greece, but new technologies now allow even small countries
to become self-sufficient. See David Blume, Alcohol
Can Be a Gas.

In
his 27 April 2010 show, 4th hour at 40:11, Alex Jones explained
how the IMF and World Bank are now poised as enemies of America:

...[There
are] hundreds of nations that the IMF and World Bank have
wrecked, which are holding companies for the big private central
banks. These are criminals. They are economic hit men. In
2002 the BBC got internal IMF documents where they were rigging
the destruction of Third World countries and planning to do
it to the West next. That is in my book Descent into Tyranny
written eight years ago. We have been warning you. We have
their plans. Their plans are in our hands. We are not flying
blind here. We know they are going to do. And just as we told
you a year ago, they would then come out and propose, "Oh,
you are never going to get your standard of living back. We
have got to cut all your services. All the money goes to us."
And now that is happening. And the lingo of the International
Monetary Fund, the future of the world hinges on "rebalancing
and consolidation," antiseptic words that would seem
not to raise a fuss. Who does not want more balance in their
life? But the translation is a bit ruder. Something on the
order of "Suck
it up, the party is over." And that is the headline.
And to keep it on track, they need more taxes, it says it
right here, more taxes, less services. You see, they
hold you hostage. Give us trillions or we will cause a depression.
Henry Paulson went before the House and Senate and told them
that in closed session. We had Congressmen on to tell you
this before it was mainstream news..".

What
proof is there that we won't be treated like a bunch of
hillbillies (which is how we are now being treated)? This
is how they treat us now, and their past dealings with Iceland
frankly are not encouraging. England with America sets up
an air force base in WWII, to protect themselves; then they
come in the 70s and steal our fish until they're forced
to stop. Then they make sure Icelandic banks go under, next
they go after the banks, and after that, the government.
Why in the world would we want to join an organization with
people that treat us like this?

...One
of the governors of the Central Bank of Iceland, Davíð
Oddsson, was interviewed on Icelandic public service broadcaster
RÚV and stated that "we [the Icelandic State]
do not intend to pay the debts of the banks that have been
a little heedless". He compared the government's measures
to the U.S. intervention at Washington Mutual, and suggested
that foreign creditors would "unfortunately only get
5–10–15% of their claims". A long standing
opponent of Icelandic membership of the European Union and
adoption of the euro as national currency, he also claimed
that "[i]f we were tied to the euro, […] we
would just have to succumb to the laws of Germany and France."[53]

Europol
can access personal information on anyone – including
their political opinions and sexual preferences –
if it suspects, rightly or wrongly, that they may be involved
in any “preparatory act” which could lead to
criminal activity.The
vagueness of the Hague-based force’s remit sparked
furious protests yesterday with critics warning that the
EU snoopers threaten our right to free speech.

The
following is the segment from the 9 March 2010 Birgitta Jonsdottir
interview
with Alex Jones where they discussed the flip-flop behavior
that has caused many Icelanders to distrust the motives of
major EU members:

Alex Jones: ...here is a Twitter question
..."What is the consequences of not conforming to EU
demands?" Birgitta: Well, there has been a lot of
doomsday consequences, scenarios told to the nation. I seriously
have a feeling because of this very strong signal from the
Icelandic nation and actually very little interest among
nations that join the EU that there was exactly a statement
made by the chief of the EU application procedure, saying
that the UK, Netherlands, and Iceland --the application
should not be interfered, you know, with despite --. Jones: So, so first they were threatening
to not let you in. Now that you don't want in, they are
saying, "Oh no, go ahead and come in, we want to rob
you like Greece."

Is
the EU a solution for Iceland? france24english —
February 25, 2009 — 2009: Europe on the move: A complete
collapse of the country's financial system eventually brought
down the 18-year-old government. There's been a lot of speculation
that Iceland could become an EU member by 2011 but the fishing
industry could just be the sticking point. See also
Europe's western outpost mulls membership of the club,
france24english — September 16, 2009 —
One year after its economy was swept away by the crisis, Iceland
is still debating whether to seek the protection of EU membership.
The prime minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir, wants to join
the club, but others fear they will lose their sovereignty.

STOCKHOLM — Iceland formally applied Thursday to join
the European Union but said it would not accept a "rotten
deal" for its fishing industry, a key sector of the island
nation's troubled economy.Iceland's
parliament voted last week to seek EU membership as a way
to stabilize the country's economy, which was one of the first
causalities of the global recession after years of strong
growth.

"Worries
about the economy" during recessions are key reasons why
Finland and Sweden got stampeded
into the EU in 1995. Now, as I document in my Henrik
Holappa archive, Finland is suffering from serious racial
problems as a consequence. Alien control of key corporations,
national media, and other strategic bases of Finnish society
is another big problem. The
good news for Iceland, according to Birgitta Jonsdottir in her
Alex Jones interview, is that the EU application process can
be held up several years and therefore may not go through.

How does one create greater
accountability
in business and government?

The
current political leaders are deeply invested in the status
quo and are unlikely to come out of any open and honest investigation
with any credibility, so it remains to be seen how far the
party's rank and file can go before they meet resistance.
The leaders' audacity in the face of the utter failure of
their policies would indicate that their powers of introspection
and rational thought are on the wane.

Moral
Hazard in Iceland by Iris Erlingsdottir, Huffington
Post, February 10, 2010 explains how Iceland's central
bank played a key role in fueling reckless financial expansionism.

Iceland's
Central Bank created moral hazard by implicitly promising
to act as the lender of last resort for the banks as they
expanded to about ten times the size of the entire domestic
economy. To minimize the danger of excessive risk-taking the
Central Bank should have closely regulated and supervised
the banks, but it was singularly incapable of doing so.

After
the populist revolt of early 2009 elected Johanna Sigurdardottir
as the new Prime Minister, she asked David Oddsson to resign
as head of the central bank. He refused.This
raises important questions. As previously discussed, a central
bank is a form of financial central planning, the exact opposite
to genuine "libertarian" approaches. Let us imagine
for the sake of argument that Oddsson is genuinely patriotic
and well-intentioned individual, although perhaps misinformed
and misguided in certain areas. Let us then ask what Oddsson
had accomplished as a financial "central planner"
during Iceland's go-go years from 2005-2009 that now qualified
him as an irreplaceable leader? What reforms had he accomplished
to vindicate himself? Who had he already blocked among Zionist
"infiltrators" that would suggest that he is serious
about blocking increased Zionist influence in the future? If
Oddsson was not actively involved in thwarting malefactors like
George Soros, Goldman Sachs, the Rothschilds, and Mossad-CIA
to defend the Icelandic national interest, what other public
justification could he possibly offer for staying in such a
sensitive position?I'm
Sorry You're So Stupid:" Head of Iceland's Central Bank
Refuses to Step Down by Iris Erlingsdottir, Huffington
Post, 11 Feb 2009, probed Oddsson's behavior further:

Iceland's
interim Prime Minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir, has asked
the members of the Central Bank to submit their resignations
so that that institution can be overhauled in a way that will
inspire trust in foreign investors.Although
one of the three governors complied with this request, David
Oddsson and Eirikur Gudnason have refused, with David sending
a letter excoriating Johanna for her impertinence.A
more humble man would perhaps have recalled De Gaulle's remark,
that the cemeteries are filled with essential men, and left
the matter to others. Unfortunately, however, in David's eyes
this crisis is all about him and his legacy. Like a certain
recent American president, he appears to see the admission
of fault as an unforgivable weakness. The only apology he
seems capable of giving is of the "I'm sorry you're so
stupid" sort.David
does make one valid point. The Central Bank was created to
serve as an independent body that would safeguard the nation's
finances from political influence. To bow to Johanna's request
would signal that the Central Bank is nothing but another
governmental agency subject to the whims of the electorate.It
is obvious, though, that the political independence of the
Central Bank was nothing more than an illusion. David had
no training in finance; he was the country's consummate politician,
and he has retained his position of dominance within the Independence
Party since he joined the Central Bank in 2005. By contrast,
the first criteria for governorship of the proposed new Central
Bank would be a master's degree in finance.David
also fails to recognize that the Central Bank under his leadership
has utterly failed in its primary missions of maintaining
the krona's integrity and keeping inflation under control.
He failed to build up adequate reserves of foreign currency
to back the commercial banks' overseas expansion. The krona
has lost half of its value in the past year, and is not in
free-fall only because the IMF has used billions of dollars
to support it. Inflation reached a record high of 18.6% in
January.According
to the Financial Times, this dispute is further damaging
Iceland's standing in the eyes of foreign investors, and may
endanger the IMF's plans for saving Iceland's economy.Surrendering
gracefully is, no doubt, an art form. History is full of examples
of leaders who made proper, timely retreats, and thereby paved
the road for their eventual return. Disrespecting the office
of the Prime Minister will not gain David the respect of the
Icelandic people. Rather, it will only make it harder for
the government selected in the forthcoming elections to rule.
If the leader of the Independence Party refuses to obey a
government formed of the country's other political parties,
why would the leaders of those parties submit to a government
led by the Independence Party?To
acknowledge that the office is greater than the individual,
that the nation is more important than the political party,
is essential to the proper functioning of a liberal democracy.The
protesters who brought down Geir Haarde's coalition no longer
believe that Iceland's leaders believe in the rule of law.
They see a very small group reaping vast rewards, while placing
the country's economic security in grave danger. They wonder
why no one has faced criminal prosecution for widely-rumored
financial crimes, why bank officials who took out loans to
buy bank stock have had their obligations forgiven, why the
government officials who failed to control the banks remain
in office.Today,
those protesters have brought their pots and pans to the Central
Bank to try to remedy this situation. Although David's letter
to Johanna exhibited more Mugabe than Churchill, let's hope
he reconsiders and decides to act in his country's best interest.Elections
are scheduled for April. If he wants redemption, let him take
his case to the people. His siege mentality only debases him
and places our economy at risk.

The
ongoing investigation of the banks, which is widely expected
to implicate many politicians, will also take much of the
Alþingi's time, with a parliamentary report expected
by the end of the year. There are reports of thousands of
secret bank accounts in Tortola and elsewhere containing funds
looted from the banks in the days immediately preceding their
collapse. Any prosecutions or attempts to claw back those
funds will surely prove to be contentious.

...It
took months to establish the office of the Special Prosecutor
which has been starved of funds from the beginning; the banks
and their boards are still littered with incompetents who
oversaw the old swindle mills. How clueless Icelandic politicians
are was especially evident during this spring's election campaign.
I'll never forget watching the largest televised debate before
the election, where nary a single word was uttered about the
collapse or the investigation, but candidates bickered about
what quick-fix would save the country - more aluminum plants,
EU membership....Eva
Joly...The famous Franco-Norwegian economic crimefighter hired
to help the Icelandic government recuperate the funds stolen
by insiders when Iceland's economy melted late last year,
has just given an ultimatum to the newly-elected center-left
government: remove the disqualified State Prosecutor (whose
son is involved with one of the banks under investigation)
and give me the resources to do my job properly, or I walk.Iceland's
self-styled tycoons have parked their money in foreign bank
accounts, just waiting for the market to bottom-out. Then
they'll swoop in, buy up all the over-mortgaged properties
from the nouveaux pauvres, and strut like princes again. This
pesky investigation outrages them. How dare she try to take
away "our" money! "She's obviously biased against
us," they say, "and is only using the investigation
to further her cult of personality and leftist political goals....The
mayor of one of Reykjavik's suburbs just can't understand
why he should resign for giving lucrative contracts over to
his daughter's firm. The former CEO of one of the failed banks
sees nothing wrong in granting himself a very substantial
loan with suspicious terms, to say the least, in order to
lower his taxes (the loan is now being investigated) . The
State Prosecutor can't see why he should resign just because
his son was the CEO of one of the bank's main shareholder.
The head of one of the "new" government-owned banks
announces that he can't see any legal reason to try to reverse
the "old" bank's decision to forgive loans its officers
and directors took out to purchase bank shares in a fraudulent
attempt to manipulate its stock price. The head of the conservative
Independence Party raised the price of gasoline at the stations
he owned because of new government taxes--long before the
taxes were scheduled to take effect.

In
her interview with Alex Jones, Birgitta Jonsdottir observed
that Icelandic law generally prevents debtors from walking away
from defaults on cars and homes, but rather they tend to be
stuck with debt for life. U.S. bankruptcy law is much more liberal
in this regard in regard to the common man. However, for Icelandic
bankers, the story is different.Fury
in Iceland as Disgraced Banking Moguls Request Loan Write-off
by Alda Sigmundsdottir, Huffington Post, 15 July 2009,
explains how some are more equal than others when it comes to
handling crushing debt:

The
Icelandic nation reeled with indignation and fury last week
when news broke that two of its disgraced banking moguls had
requested that about half of an ISK 6 billion [USD 47 million]
loan be written off by now-nationalized bank Kaupthing.

Finnur
Ingólfsson, former member of parliament, Minister,
and CEO of the Icelandic central bank a few years ago, got
on one of his companies, a debt of 3.5 Billion krona written
off. Another one, Mr. Bjarni Ármansson, former CEO
of Glitnir bank, got 800 million debt written off and when
asked about the debt, he said, " it would be irresponsible
use of my money to pay the debt " So it does matter if
you are connected to the people in power.

Not
one banker has been sent to jail or forced to regurgitate
any ill-gotten gains. Not one regulator has been fired. The
politicians who oversaw (and profited from) the bank deregulation
remain in power and, if anything, they and their buddies are
in a better position than ever.